Using Fear Appeal in Green-PC AdvertisingFenghueih Huarng Jan-hui Liao Bao-lin LinDepartment of Business Administration,Southern Taiwan University of Technology

MotivationFear appeal are mostly used in public healthFear appeal + action frame (Rothman and Salovey 1997; Rothman et al 1999) It seems unethicalfear appeal followed by product frame => scare audience before promoting a commercial productframing product followed by scary information => to investigate presentation order effect

Literature and HypothesesInvolvement=>H1Message framing & involvement=>H2Presentation order & involvement=>H3Self vs. environment references=>H4

InvolvementRobertson et al (1984)showedAD and information content attract more in high involvement.High involvement actively collect more product and brand information.High involvement reject contradicted information, low involvement passively accept contradicted information.

H1High involving consumers has better AD attitude and PI than low involving consumers.

Message framing and involvementloss frame good for detection of health problem gain frame good for prevention behaviors (Rothman & Salovey 1997; Rothman et al 1999)Based on persuasion literature(Chaiken 1980Petty & Cacioppo 1983), Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy(1990):LI=>simple inference=>positive frameHI=>detailed processing=>negative frame

H2Under high involvement, negative frame is more persuasive under low involvement, positive frame is more persuasive.

Presentation Order and involvementTwo contradictory messages Haugtvedt and Wegener(1994)attitude strength & ELMHigh relevant => high elaboration=> primacy effectLow relevant => low elaboration=> recency effectDifferent presentation order for same message Unnava et al (1994)under memory-based judgments order is unimportant with print message =>no or low processing info has no presentation order effect Buda and Zhang(2000)low personal relevant product primacy effect for non-expert recency effect for expert

H3high involvement show primacy effect on final attitude low involvement show recency or no order effect on final attitude.

Referencesself vs. environmentBower & Gilligan(1979),Burnkrant & Unnava(1995),Greenwald & Pratkanis(1984),kuiper & Rogers(1979),Roger et al (1977):self-reference has more elaboration than other-referenceKeller and Block(1996)show interaction between reference and fear for smoking AD Under imagery processing, high-fear is more persuasive for other-reference (too much fear arousal inhibit elaborating) Under objective processing, high-fear is more persuasive than low-fear, other-reference is more persuasive than self-referenceSelf-reference emphasize cancers caused by radiation =>high-fear (but not too high) & higher and direct efficacyEnvironment-reference emphasize environmental destroys caused by ozonosphere damage =>low-fear & lower and indirect efficacy

H4Self-reference has greater persuasion than environment-reference has greater persuasion than environment-reference

Extraneous variablesBoster & Mongeau(1984) fear appeal are more effective for elder audiencePalam(2001) review ninety academic reseavch papers about gender identity in consumer behaviorGeller(2003) other affecting factors- threat component, action component, framing, recipient volunteers, audiences anxiety, perceived response cost, etcThis study only include gender and age as control variables

Method (1)Green-PC is a familiar product and not low involvingDep. Vars (Likert scale)AD cognition (6 items), AD affect (6 items), PI (7 items)Independent variables (controlled) Orderfear appeal first vs. product first Framingpositive product frame vs. negative frame referenceself vs. environment *selfradiation lead to fatal diseases *environmentozonosphere damage lead to harmness on human, animal, plants & the earthModerate vars (Likert scale)product involvement (CIP:16 items) & environment cognition (NEP:12 items)

Method (2)Controlgender (nominal), age (ratio)746 undergraduate students(1)look over a PPT AD (2) fill up questionnaire (3) receive a small gift (4) debriefed with our thanks.

Sample sizes for 8 combinations (2X2X2)

Order *Frame*Reference Crosstabulation

PF

NF

Total

Slef-reference

FF

102

99

201

PDF

82

100

182

Total

184

199

383

Environment-reference

FF

85

86

171

PDF

87

105

192

Total

172

191

363

Results(1)measurement reliabilities are all greater than 0.7 (Table1)Samples are clustered into two groups: low vs. high involving (Using CIP & NEP)=>two groups are significant different (Table2)Main effect(Table3-1)

variable

AD cognition

AD affect

Purchase intention

Table 4

Order

***

***

-

PDF > FF

Frame

+

-

***

NF > PF

Involvement

***

***

***

HI > LI

Reference

*

*

*

SR > ER

Table 1

AD cognition-6 items

0.794

AD affect-6 items

0.831

Purchase Intention-7 items

0.907

Product Involvement-16 items(CIP)

0.840

Environment cognition-12 items(NEP)

0.738

Reliability of Measurements-Cronbach Coefficient alpha(n:728)

Table 2

T-test for Low & High Involvement

Low-involvement

(n:436)

High-involvement

(n:268)

Measurement

Mean(stand error)

Mean(stand error)

T-value

P-value

Environment Cognition(NEP)

3.726(0.017)

4.361(0.022)

22.430

0.000

Importance

3.311(0.026)

4.053(0.033)

17.668

0.000

Risk Probability

3.029(0.026)

3.589(0.033)

13.508

0.000

Pleasure

3.336(0.028)

4.060(0.036)

16.029

0.000

Sign-value

2.939(0.029)

3.393(0.037)

9.638

0.000

Risk importance

2.922(0.030)

3.465(0.038)

11.260

0.000

Table 3-1 main effect & control vars

Main effects & control variables

Source

Dependent Variable

Sum of

Squares

df

Mean Square

F

P-value

Error

ADcongnition

216.140

627

0.345

ADaffect

289.337

627

0.461

PI

227.243

627

0.362

gender

ADcongnition

1.025

1

1.025

2.973

.085

ADaffect

.632

1

0.632

1.369

.242

PI

1.365

1

1.365

3.766

.053

Age

ADcongnition

2.631E-03

1

2.631E-03

0.008

.930

ADaffect

1.600

1

1.600

3.468

.063

PI

0.453

1

0.453

1.250

.264

Order(O)

ADcongnition

10.391

1

10.391

30.142

.000

ADaffect

5.009

1

5.009

10.855

.001

PI

0.760

1

0.760

2.096

.148

Framing(F)

ADcongnition

1.153

1

1.153

3.344

.068

ADaffect

0.410

1

0.410

0.889

.346

PI

3.734

1

3.734

10.302

.001

Involvement(I)

ADcongnition

20.151

1

20.151

58.455

.000

ADaffect

11.495

1

11.495

24.911

.000

PI

59.727

1

59.727

164.797

.000

References(R)

ADcongnition

1.836

1

1.836

5.326

.021

ADaffect

1.973

1

1.973

4.275

.039

PI

2.139

1

2.139

5.902

.015

Table 4 Group means (stand error)

dependent measure

LI

HI

FF

PDF

PF

NF

SR

ER

AD Cognition

3.398

(0.030)

3.766***

(0.038)

3.448

(0.034)

3.716***

(0.035)

3.538

(0.036)

3.626+

(0.033)

3.638

(0.035)

3.526*

(0.034)

AD affect

2.919

(0.035)

3.197***

(0.044)

2.965

(0.039)

3.151***

(0.041)

3.032

(0.042)

3.084

(0.038)

3.116

(0.040)

3.000*

(0.040)

PI

3.458

(0.031)

4.093***

(0.039)

3.739

(0.035)

3.812

(0.036)

3.696

(0.037)

3.855***

(0.034)

3.836

(0.036)

3.715*

(0.035)

LI: low-involvement, HI: high-involvement, PF: positive frame, NF: negative frame, FF: fear-first, PDF: product-first, SR: self-reference, ER: environment-reference

+: P

0.1, *: P

0.05, **: P

0.01, ***: P

0.001

_1213692889.unknown

_1213692947.unknown

Results(2)Interaction effect (Table3-2)

Control variables gender is significant on AD cognition(+) & PI (+)

age is negatively related to AD cognition (r= -0.102, p = 0.007) =>younger has better AD cognitionFemale > Male

Interaction

AD cognition

AD affect

Purchase intention

Order*Involvement

+

-

+

Order*Frame

+

**

**

AD cognition

AD affect

Purchase intention

Female

3.628 (.033)

3.094 (.039)

3.828 (.034)

Male

3.537 (.039)

3.022 (.045)

3.723 (.040)

Table 3-2 Interaction effects

Source

Dependent Variable

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

P-value

O* I

ADcongnition

1.067

1

1.067

3.096

.079

ADaffect

0.227

1

0.227

0.492

.483

PI

1.312

1

1.312

3.620

.058

F* I

ADcongnition

4.992E-02

1

4.992E-02

0.145

.704

ADaffect

8.957E-03

1

8.957E-03

0.019

.889

PI

0.377

1

0.377

1.041

.308

R*I

ADcongnition

0.102

1

0.102

0.295

.587

ADaffect

0.141

1

0.141

0.307

.580

PI

0.675

1

0.675

1.861

.173

O* F

ADcongnition

1.131

1

1.131

3.281

.071

ADaffect

3.564

1

3.564

7.723

.006

PI

2.867

1

2.867

7.910

.005

O* R

ADcongnition

0.364

1

0.364

1.055

.305

ADaffect

0.327

1

0.327

0.709

.400

PI

0.530

1

0.530

1.462

.227

F* R

ADcongnition

1.703E-02

1

1.703E-02

0.049

.824

ADaffect

0.232

1

0.232

0.502

.479

PI

2.862E-03

1

2.862E-03

0.008

.929

Interaction effects

Results(3) Order*Involvement Interaction=> support H3ANOVA P=0.079P=0.483P=0.058p=.001p=.000p=.031p=.018p=.363p=.000

Results(4) order * frame interactionANOVA P=0.071P=0.006P=0.005p=0.245p=0.003p=0.200p=0.000p=0.015p=0.000

Discussions & Conclusions(1)Our experiment support H1 & H4 as expected** high-inv has greater AD attitude & PI than low-inv** self-reference has greater persuasion than environment-referenceH3 is supported.high-involving, primacy effect (PDF) for all dep. varslow-involving, primacy effect (PDF) on AD attitude no order effect on PI** low-inv consumer has low elaboration => primacy effect on AD attitude, but hard to change PI** Product-first seems more persuasive than Fear-first

Discussions & Conclusions(2)Frame and involvement interaction is not significant in ANOVA. All six means > 3 (p 3 (p

Discussions & Conclusions(3)ANOVA show order*frame interactionBuda & Zhang (2000) & Buda (2003) show no 2-way interaction (order*frame)Stereo fear appeal (FF) literaturegain-frame is better for health prevention; loss-frame is better for early detection (Rothman et al, 1999). no frame effect for prevention; negative frame is better for detection (Block & Keller 1995) Buying green-PC is preventive, no frame effect on AD cognition & PI; positive frame for AD affect => consistent to FF health literature

Discussions & Conclusions(4)Product first (PDF) take fear appeal as a facilitator to explain the risk.PDF has all six means (CIP & NEP) > 3FF has five means > 3 (sign mean = 3)FF > PDF in NEP (p=0.013), PDF > FF in sign (p=0.013)For PDF, negative frame good for high-inv => consistent to product AD literatureFF cause more fear arousal => inhibit elaborationPDF cause less fear => more elaboration

Thank you for your attention